The Western political Left famously began its political existence two hundred twenty years ago in the halls of the French Revolutionary Parliament. It proudly declared itself the Party of Liberty. It is now the Party of State control, Liberty’s ancient enemy. Its founders were men and women of great passion. Its heirs, from Europe to America, are so bloodless one sometimes wonders if they are really androids. Once revolutionary progressives, they are now either reactionary oppressors, or apologists for a stultifying status quo.

The Left turned into its opposite. Instead of withering away, thereby ushering in an era of radical equality, the state grew mightier, and became the instrument of a new class of rulers, largely drawn from the intellectual and legal elites. After some initial discomfort, as in the primal scream of the likes of C. Wright Mills, the Left on both sides of the Atlantic embraced the enterprise, and today are avid participants in the creation of the “soft tyranny” Alexis de Tocqueville warned us about.

As the revolutionary vision evaporated, the Left was reduced to a political party with little more than a desire for power. I think the decisive moment came with the last European war, when the passion that had attended the birth of the European Left burned out, along with that of its evil twin, fascism. Political intensity in the Old World vanished across the spectrum after World War II, which marked the end of the era of revolutionary Europe. It was replaced with the bloodless elitism that is so thoroughly embodied in the European Union. Passionate protest passed briefly to the young, as in France in 1968, but it has remained marginal. Today it is next to impossible to find a European leftist who speaks the old language of liberty. Indeed, insofar as any political figures invoke the old ideals, they are “rightists.”

The American Left has come to this sorry condition more recently. For most of the past two hundred-plus years there were deep, fundamental differences between European and American leftists. The Europeans were more doctrinaire, the Americans more pragmatic. The Euros insisted on translating Marx into political and social parties and unions, the Americans never had a serious socialist labor movement. And the Euros were suckers for Communism in a way the Americans never were. The Euros fell for “state socialism,” while the American Dream inspired most Americans.

92 Comments, 92 Threads

1.
Professor Guvinoff

Things have gotten upside down to the point where we don’t understand what ‘liberal’ means anymore. To make yourself clear, you now need to specify Thomas Jefferson liberal as opposed to John Kerry liberal! The label did not change, but the meaning has made a U-turn!

The same confusion reigns with what passes for science these days. Journalists often start an article with “scientists believe” etc…, as if science was a matter of faith! They would not get away with this if more people had understood how science works instead of finding that you can get respect by faking knowledge with big words.

And so the depth of conversation reaches the height of kindergarten logic! There may be bliss in ignorance, but that cannot be the whole story. How long are we going to keep sending our children to colleges where they encourage robotic hysteria instead of critical thought? Perhaps idiocy is a luxury, which we could never afford if there had not been any scholarship at some earlier time? Is it going to take a deep depression to teach again respect for the facts and aspiration to accomplishment?

Wow, thanks for clearing that up. I knew we were bad. I just didn’t know how bad. Perhaps you can follow up with an article on conservative exceptionalism, you know, just in case anyone around here isn’t convinced by this one.

In politics, great changes seldom happen all at once. As R. A. Butler said, “Politics is the art of the possible.” What’s politically possible at any moment is seldom the complete replacement of the existing order. Even revolutions tend to impose their effects gradually; the character of the old regime strongly colors that of what replaces it for a long while.

From its inception, the totalitarian germs in the New Left were evident to anyone who cared to look. Its radicals were dismissive of rights; they were passionate about intentions and outcomes. In effect, they had shrugged off both moral constraints and the lessons of history in favor of a preferred vision of a society. It didn’t matter that their aims were impossible of achievement.

The key element here is the persistence of those intentions and the determination to achieve those outcomes. Motivation is a field-like force: it keeps pushing until it gets what it wants. It can only be resisted by an equal or greater field-like force…and the American people, cowed by the fervor of the leftists and the golden patina on their vision, possessed no such countervailing force to buttress them in freedom. They had lost the Founders’ vision of freedom, and had no substitute for it.

Socialism has NEVER been anything more then a stepping stone for tyranny. When one (1) party controls the State, whoever controls that party also controls the State.
You won’t find Socialists speaking of this, of course. Socialists always prefer vague terms such as ‘hope’ and ‘change’.

Actually, where they went after the fall of the USSR was the environmental movement, to use the courts to control and destroy businesses and people in general via the Clean Air act and the Endangered Species act. It’s working pretty good so far. They have ruined Californias central valley farms and logging industry and have shackled the oil and gas industry as well, thus ruining the states economy.

This article proves once again that Obama was a better choice in 2008 than McCain. Right now, Barry is the last liberal hope for success. And given his general mental and intellectual instability, and deep problems with the US economy – this one term president may well destroy American liberalism for the next 40 years.

If the message of this article is that the political meaning of “left” is the opposite of what it was originally meant to be, and the meaning of “right” almost exactly the opposite, then I am in complete agreement. However, I have serious disagreements over some important details.

First, it makes no sense to talk of the American “left” before ww2, because the left/right terminology was not used in the English-speaking countries before ww2.

Second, it is a mistake to identify Marxism with the “left” before the 1930s, because, as far as I know (from an essay by Steven Lukes), Marxists never defined themselves as “left-wing” before then. In fact, the only time Lenin referred to the “left” (again, afaik) was when he described it as an infantile disorder.

Third, this article gives the impression that the “left” changed gradually. However, as late as 1932, Mussolini and Gentile identified the “right” with the State, the collective, and authority; and, implicitly, the “left” with individualism, democracy, and classical liberalism. In fact, the reason Mussolini rejected Marxism is because he rejected the class struggle; in other words, Marxism was not collectivist enough for Mussolini. (Dr. Ledeen knows all of this better than me.)

From all of the above, my tentative conclusion is that the “left-right” dichotomy was redefined in the 1930s and 1940s by an unholy alliance of communists and American statists, both keen to associate fascism with classical liberalism. I also speculate that American cultural hegemony made this radical redefinition acceptable in Europe.

It has always seemed a little fishy–to this keyboard, at least–when modern reactionaries like Grand Ayatollah Mikey bin Ledeen here profess to approve of everything ‘progressive’ — as soon as it has been dead a couple of centuries.

I suspect our wingnutettes and wingnuts deceive themselves in this matter by supposin’ that their wingnuttiness is a matter of permanent dogmata and ‘principles’ rather than of temperament and sentimentalism.

I’d even betcha the good folks at Hooverville and Rio Limbaugh basically just think (_i.e._, feel) that people established in power are more their own kind of people — the so-called “respectable” kind, don’t you know?

The leftist takeover of this country has been a slow and deliberate process that has taken control first of our schools and the media, then the democratic party and now the government. Mr. Ledeen is absolutely correct in his assessment that this is not about any true “socialist” values. It is about power. The power to force others to conform to the leftist issue du jour. And their thirst for power has been cleaverly cloaked in phony issues such as “saving the planet” and providing “affordable health care for all”.

They slowly built their control over our lives in incremental fashion as they set out to control our lives. At first they went after the big players – corporate entities that they could demonize on whatever issue the presented as either populist or progressive. Then slowly they turned against the masses with window dressing environmental and social issues that were enacted for our own good. What held them in check was the fact that for the past 30 years they had some sort of barrier to their true leftist agenda. Either the old guard Democrats in the leadership post or Republican Presidents with the power to veto legislation that went too far. Today without those controls they are now on an accelerated agenda. They recognize that they have a small window of opportunity to reshape our society in whatever image they think is “right” though for the life of me I cannot determine what their end state actually looks like (and I suspect that they don’t either). Even though they may be commiting political suicide with their current agenda they are not concerned about losing the majority for they firmly believe that once their agenda is law – there is no way we can go back to a federal government that is actually allowed under our constitution. With the control of the media propagandist, they belive that they can successfully shout down any attempts to undue the damage they have created.

The only way we can change this is if we accept a number of conditions. First off, the middle class must accept that the Democratic party does not represent their interest. The leftist have complete disdain for the workers of the world. You don’t believe in what the leftist stand for and they know it. Instead they provide propaganda through their intermediaries such as labor unions and activitist groups that try to convince you that what they are demanding is what you really need – and of course someone else will be made to pay for all that we provide to you.

The second point is that the challenging party to the current ruling elite must take the position that for more than 30 years we have allowed our liberties to be taken from us one step at a time. We cannot regain our liberties and control of our government unless we are willing to elect people who will dismantle this mess no matter how loud the left screams.

We are at a point where the contrast has become clear. There should be no doubt in liberty loving individuals that the left – through the democratic party – are working hard to make us serfs of our government. We also have for the first time in decades a new media – the internet – where the views of liberty seeking individuals can be heard. We must now decide if we are willing to take back our lives, liberties and our government or if we are to accept the current fate before us.

One of the proofs of your assertion, Mr. Ledeen, is the behavior of leftist commenters on conservative web sites such as Pajamas Media. “Liberal trolls” as I call them are never in doubt and always immoderate in their criticism. Bush was not just a bad president to them, he is the worst person ever, worse even than Hitler. Sarah Palin is not a person of normal intelligence who was not ready for vicious attacks by the Democrats, to liberal trolls she is the stupidest person ever who should not be allowed to speak in public. Global warming is not a scientific theory amenable to debate but a settled consensus whose least detail can never be questioned. You have seen how those who express any doubt about global warming are dismissed by liberal trolls as unworthy for one reason or another to participate in the question.

Of course there are minor exceptions to this rule but in the main, liberal trolls’ behavior is proof that leftists today have discarded the ideals of liberalism in their pursuit of power.

The French Revolution was indeed the starting point for modern leftism, and it started as it has continued. Maximilian Robespierre turned the Revolution into the Terror, with Jean-Paul Marat cheering him on and in fact insisting that he wasn’t introducing nearly enough people to Madame’ Guillotine. (Marat met his end in a bath, and didn’t get half what he deserved, IMHO.) Even then, the unholy alliance between “progressive” politicians and radicals in media was pretty obvious.

When you compare the French Revolution to the American one (that the French claimed as their inspiration), it’s pretty obvious that the European brand took away the wrong lessons. The Euro brand was never about “Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternity”; it was always about a different brand of thugs seizing power by force and murdering anyone who dared to object. The American Revolution resulted in General George Washington becoming an elected President. The French Revolution resulted in an artillery captain named Napoleon crowning himself Emperor. And plunging half the world into war. Luckily for the world, Napoleon was (like it or not, military historians) a near-total incompetent on all counts, which probably saved humanity from a worse fate than what actually happened. (Imagine a world in which Bonaparte’ actually succeeded in conquering Europe and Russia, and holding on to his ill-gotten gains.)

Later on, it continued with Napoleon III over there, and his Austrian puppet, Emperor Maximilian’, in Mexico. Fortunately for the human race as a whole, those two were not even as effective as Bonaparte’. Meaning, they didn’t manage to kill quite so many people in their own quests for hegemony.

Still later, the basic “philosophy” of the French Revolution gave rise to Communism, and modern socialism, and managed to kill more people in the 20th Century than the original brand had in the 18th and 19th.

And now, we have socialism grafted onto “environmentalism”. Which claims that the main problems with our civilization are (a) it exists, and (b) there are Just Too D***ed Many People On The Earth. And they are determined to correct both problems, a tout suite’.

Face it- the “deep-ecos”, like their socialist forebears, deeply resent the fact that there is anyone on Earth but themselves. It’s just the old (sour) wine in a new (biodegradable) bottle.

So much for the “superior wisdom” of the European (and now worldwide) brand of “progressives”.

The cat’s cradle of cross referenced legislation AND law-enforced agency regulations make all laws by Congress uninterpretable by citizenry.
But ‘law enforcers’ can assemble pieces as needed to create whatever they want with which to pistol whip you.

THROW THE BUMS OUT! ALL OF THEM! Burn the US Code and start again.
Ain’t gonna happen, so go Galt.

It’s a strange paradox, that the left, viewing itself as the font of equality and fairness has actually transformed into an elitist level.The modern left reminds me of the 18th century landowners, who considered that power and wealth ought to be derived only from ‘the land’ and viewed with contempt anyone in ‘trade’.

The modern left’s equivalence of a genteel land tenure is the government job: academics, bureaucracies, etc. This Set considers themselves superior and endowed with both the wisdom and the right, to govern the masses, who are engaged in the market rather than the gov/land economy.

This Set lives in a ‘virtual’ or utopian realm, the zone of ideology, the world of what ought to be rather than what is. And rejects the touch of hard everyday reality.

Dissent, which is actually a sign of equality, is not allowed because it intrudes on the abstract purity of that virtual ideology. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and so many on the left, have made it clear that criticism is a form of ignorance and boorishness.

This elite Set governs by misinformation, manipulation and divisiveness. Oppose the left, and you are not met with an open and equal debate, but insults, denigration…all attempts to shut you up and return you to your low class status…and keep the dust and mud of reality far from the unreal purity of ideology.

It is quite something to go to a left blog or a leftist commenter and ask questions about the validity of their statements. Rather than engaging in a reasoned discussion, the left instantly attacks with insults…and no data..because the ideology of the left, living only in a virtual realm has no possibilty of transforming into the everyday world.

The left will then turn to using force to push this virtual ideology into everyday life. And of course, it doesn’t work, and therefore, more penalties and rules will be applied. Defeat and any problems will be blamed on Others, on the previous administration,on the people, on ..whatever.

That they “turned” so quickly and effortlessly would strongly suggest to me they were never sincere in the first place. As many critics of socialism have long believed, the true motivations of socialists have little or nothing to do with justice. Rather, there are dark ulterior motives at work: as soon as socialists gain any power, their authoritarian nature comes forward. Take freedom of speech. For decades they bore the mantle of crusaders of free speech. But when they came into power in Congress 30 years ago, THEY have been behind the most anti-First Amendment legislation since the Alien & Sedition Laws: Fairness Doctrine, “Hate Crime” Laws, and the mother of them all, Campaign Finance “Reform.” There are several other examples of their hypocrisy.

The United States is at serious risk from its inexperienced and naive progressive movement. While Europe has sustained a formidable socialist movement, it has had a curious set of restraints that originates from the pure “violence of the real” French Revolution. Combine that with Germany’s 20th century progressive project (the Third Reich) and one can comprehend why the continent has been rendered a state of postmodern sitzpinklers. The only real violence they are threatened comes from outside, primarily through the pending dominance of Islam across Europe. The legacy leftist culture in Europe is a rotting carcass.

But the U.S. has great potential to embrace real violence through the expression of its movement. Don’t doubt for a moment that the progressives will soon begin efforts to cleanse public institutions of impure thought, just as they’re presently eradicating private institutions. Obama’s domestic corps may be the necessary force not merely to police the nation, but to operate the private sector institutions that are nationalized. Once cleansing begins, there are many on the right that won’t willingly be silenced or sent away for treatment and the rise of the progressive movement’s deep potential for irrational violence will likely emerge.

Absolutely right! I’m 47 and my entire life has been a constant struggle against these opressive pricks. That would be bad enough for them merely repressive thugs but DO they have to be so self-rightious and smug. As a wise man once said “Screw you hippie!”

The French Revolution has been a disaster from the very beginning. Its core doctrines have always favored state control over the masses! The very concept of political checks and balances was inherently rejected. Benevolent dictators should run everything for only they truly represented the common folk. Any dissent was therefore deemed an act of betrayal against the masses—and deserving of eradication. The French should be deeply ashamed of their revolution. It was the American one that was truly successful.

But it only makes me more certain of what I have already posted many times:
America has not the antibodies to defend herself against domestic subversion.

While I may agree that the likes of Al Gore and Obama are disgustingly “caviar-left”, this fact doesn’t change the MORE important fact, i.e., that the American left is driven by a radical ideology, a form of neo-marxism, and it is carrying on a dangerous plan to destroy America’s might (military and economic might).
The delirious increase of the deficit, the plan of cap and trade, the plans about health care aim FIST OF ALL at destroying the force of the dollar.
Once that will be accomplished, the role of America in the world will change completely and the subversives worldwide are waiting for that day to take their revenge against everything America has done in the last 80 to 90 years as a beacon of Freedom.

To say that this plan is not really a totalitarian plan means that we are willing to close our eyes in front of the greatest danger for Freedom in the last two centuries.

Communists are communists, and it seems to me that many intellectuals refuse to see this simple fact.

7. SGT Ted:
Progressives have always been control freaks. They just pervert the language or outright lie in order to fool people. Obama is the culmination of it.

Dec 13, 2009 – 4:10 am
8. SGT Ted:
Actually, where they went after the fall of the USSR was the environmental movement, to use the courts to control and destroy businesses and people in general via the Clean Air act and the Endangered Species act. It’s working pretty good so far. They have ruined Californias central valley farms and logging industry and have shackled the oil and gas industry as well, thus ruining the states economy.

The Democrats, however, are now worried about losing Congress in 2010. They want to get their radical statist agenda through before that, but, they’ll be moving their puppet Salesman, Obama, more to the centre in his speeches, to hide this agenda.

What we are witnessing with the left currently, Michael…is parasite as host.

The left end of the spectrum has tilted so far out of the range of reason and into the realm of totalitarianism. And there is nothing soft about the tyranny.

This parasitic disease of rampant, unchecked, irrational and unreasonable leftism is filled with inertia. It is an invasive body in motion, that will remain in motion, unable to stop its inexorable march toward mind control, and the crushing of principled dissent.

Look at the denizens of the echo chamber, unable to think, unwilling to reason, uninterested in facts, uninspired by truth.

The legacy media, long ago stripped bare of ethics and wallowing in a cesspool of deceit, joined as comrades in arms by academia and pop culture icons from entertainment, to foist an unending loop of infomercial quality red meat to the useless idiots too eager to earn their “red badge of courage” by trashing our country and our countrymen at the slightest drop of a hat.

These parasites have invaded the hard sciences, making arithmetic a “matter of opinion”. Every leftist is not only entitled to their own opinion, but also to their own facts. And every science, is now a “political” science.

These arrogant, smarmy, CHINO’s (countrymen here in name only) put on the faux mantle of the “elite”, but really are nothing more than rote memorizing, message “carriers”, predictable, cultish, and fanatic.

Say, Eon, bravo for your neocon erudition on our Revolution, sure the american one didn’t make collateral damages like ours, cuz the Independence war had absorbed all the velleities of terror for quite a century, until the secession war.

Now had we not paid and fought your “revolution” war, ours would have been as so pacipic, cuz the lack of money for buying a piece of “cake” (irony on) was the main reason for our population revolted.

Now, fortunately there are fairer analyses by neutral experts, other than “those” specialised on anti-french sentiment that I can often read over this board.

I guess what astonishes me is that Al Gore can stand up during his presidental campaign and warn against the Conservatives as being people, “Who want to control every aspect of your lives.” I suppose that if you mean that many Conservatives don’t want you to get aborted when you are still a fetus then they will “control” whether you get born or not, but other than that….?

Admittedly, this is the same Al Gore who stood on the White House lawn after Congrss made the decision to impeach Bill Clinton and said “The American people don’t care about this. They care about values.” Well, Al, if impeaching a President that lies under oath is not about values I don’t know what it is.

Is this simple lying or does the Left really think that Conservatives want to “control every aspect of life” while they do not?

no socialism intended in that declearation, but in the context, that means that serfdom was abolished, that people could pretend to fair trials, not in the remnent benefit of the nobles, that education for all would become a right, according to ones means and not only reserved to a priviledged class, that Jews became equal to the French, that slavery was abolished…

Socialism origin happened later when a class of workers appears with manufactures and mines, and certainly not from the educated bourgeoise elite that fostered Revolutionary principles.

Baboeuf was one of the promotors of “socialism” but he was guillotined by Robespierre himself

Yes, I too feel rather nostalgic for the good old days, when men were men and sheep a bit more nervous, but we cant go back. The left, with its wishful thinking that people should be free and entitled to equal protection and the opportunity to succeed regardless of race, creed or color is something the right has never been happy about. Time and again the argument about the right to vote, travel or get a job has fallen on deaf ears. But progress has made progress…whether some like it or not. We should not be so bitter and unhappy about that shall we? After all, its Christmas….Merry Christmas !

The political perpective of the left is focused around two classes: the Elite and the Masses.

The French Revolution removed the hereditary elite and inserted the professional elite, the government, as Ruler.

The political perspective of the right is focused around a middle class, open to any individual via their own merit.
The American Revolution set up a nation based around the freedoms and responsibilities of this middle class, a set of people dealt with as individuals not as a class.

The left assert that they alone have the ‘wisdom’ to rule as the government, over the masses, who are all treated as a collective. This notion of the ‘collective’ is held within their terms of ‘universal’, and ‘equitable’.

Such a reduction of individualism to the LCD (lowest common denominator) can be found in all socialist and leftist agendas.It effectively prevents this low class from moving into the Elite Class. This isolation and lack of power is achieved by regulations – and force – that keep this low class powerless and dependent.

Obama and the radical Democrats are attempting to remove the middle class of America – which will destroy its entrepreneurship and innovative capacity, because it is only a middle class, the home of the free individual, that can innovate and create wealth. This is obvious from any examination of other societies.

capital “L” Liberals have forever tainted the words, “progressive” and “liberal,” as they are anything but liberal and progressive. From the moment Mr. Obama took office, I knew that it is only a matter of time before the leftists eat their own, particularly because Mr. Obama, who is a Marxist authoritarian, relied on the votes of anti-authoritarian anarchists, who will, sooner or later, begin to take bites out him (heh, unintentional “zombie” metaphor)

27. Tresco:
“Absolutely right! I’m 47 and my entire life has been a constant struggle against these opressive pricks.”

Let’s see, your e47. That means you turned 18 in 1980 – the first year of the “greed is good” decade. The first year of the Reagan era. Let’s go with Reagan – he leaves in 1988, enter Bush 1 . . . you’re 26. Four more years of Bush and a good old war . . . Now you’re 30. 1992-1994 you have Clinton, that’s two years. Now you’re 32. Enter 1994 and here comes Newt and his Contract with America . . . the Republican Revolution which kept Republicans in control of Congress (save one Senate year) through 2006, now you’re 44. Finish up with the last two years of Bush’s 8-year run. You’re 46. Obama wins one year ago, you’re 47. You are right, you’re entire life has been one constant struggle against these oppressive pricks – the conservative Republican pricks.

cfbleachers #36, The Left is indeed the parasite as host which is a great metaphor; however, the parasite cannot be the host simultaneously; likewise, when left out-of-control, the Left turns on its own since it is based on anarchy, various groups of minorities with their own agenda, & totalitarianism. The parasite as host will die. And the Leftist Democrats will be replaced by Republicans after 2010. 2010 will not be a bloodbath, a massacre, or earthquake, but the event will be so large & absolute that the remaining Democrats will be left speechless when it is all over. 2010 will be such a dramatic conservative realignment that the arrogant politicians will be beside themselves sulking & sucking their thumbs. Expect Obama not to be watching the elections either; he will ignore them & be seen going out with Michelle Obama. Obama will continue to live in his cloistered fantasy land.

Collectivism has always resulted in totalitarianism. Totalitarianism was the first organized western political philosophy, dating back to the time of Plato and his cohorts. The open society, fostered by the political philosophy of individualism and citizen rule, was never tried until the American revolution. In a historical sense, the Democrat Party is now dominated by regressives, not progressives. The open society is a much more difficult political road to travel. It means the citizens are responsible to each other, while pursuing the course of liberty. Going back to government, to which the citizens are subservient, is regressive and has always resulted in the most misery for the individual. Don’t let these clowns ever call themselves progressives because that is the opposite of what they are.

Progressives have always been oppressive if the people they dained to shepherd rejected their idea of progressive. We must never forget that the progressivism of the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and a military dictator who wreaked havoc upon Euorpe. American progressivism came hand in hand with American imperialism and the white man’s burden. Tolerant leftists are famous for being intolerant of those who disagree with them. When progessives and progressivism is rejected, the progressives get violent.

…the arrogant conviction that smart people were more reliable than free markets and, ultimately, free people.

That might help explain why people keep referring to Timothy Geithner as “brilliant”, a guy who hasn’t done anything right monetarily speaking before or after becoming Sec’y of the Treasury. Such a smart guy apparently can’t even understand TurboTax when it comes to his personal finances.

Or why Barack Obama can barely manage to conceal that he and the so called progressives with which he’s surrounded himself have better, wiser “progressive” ideas than those old guys who conceived the Constitution.

Actually, eon’s view of the French Revolution is very similiar to the one espoused by Simon Schama (who is neither American nor a neocon) in his great book “Citizens.”

From a review of “Citizens”:

Schama theorizes that the cause of France’s revolution lies in the self-deception of the ruling intelligentsia, who believed that they could make a Utopian France by allowing controlled violence, murder, and the destruction of property in the name of liberty, and all to exist simultaneously with good government

Schama must be a French-hating bigot I guess. According to certain commenters, the French are always right and always superior and if you question them in any way, it can only mean you “hate” them.

The desire for power, legitimized by the conviction that the New Class should make the decisions for the rest of us.

Pretty creepy thought, considering the likes of the President’s sycophants, Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner, Big Sis Napolitano, Robert (the third) Reich, Val Jarret, Rahm & David, Kathleen Sebelius, Steven (“paint your roofs white”) Chu, Mark (“get those damn republicans off the airwaves”) Lloyd, John Holdren (“government control of every move you make”) the entire democrat leadership of Congress, both those Nancy has horsewhipped into shape and those Harry Reid has tried, sotto voce but without much success, to intimidate.

We’ll skip over Joe Biden & Hillary for the moment, both of whom (despite a common proclivity to wild exaggeration) seem relatively normal compared to much of the rest of the crowd.

Most of those people aren’t qualified to tie their own shoelaces, let alone make decisions affecting the entire country.

It is true that this is a great irony of mankind. That slavery will be repackaged in the minds of the people as liberty. The only way to keep your head above the sinking, it seems, is to abandon ship. Is this the eleventh hour? The reason the ironic conclusion will go over is because it is irredeemably tied to the slavery of the flesh. People gravitate towards pleasure, and as the world becomes more and more savvy at bringing the comfort of living to all it is only a matter of time before they are collectively controlled as herds. So, after all, we’ll see that it was not the leaders who chose this, but the people. And that the leaders who championed such false Liberalism (I say false because Liberal is actually a good word) simply were products of history, in that they are the leaders and organizers of the slaves.

“To be sure, they call for a “redistribution of wealth,” but, as we have seen with TARP, the wealth is redistributed to political cronies.”

I find this amusing… the very definition of socialism is the real world is taking from everyone and giving it to the elite select few that have the “need”.

Never in history has socialism ever been about being equal…. nor will it ever be. To ascribe some noble ideology to socialism is a complete joke and is only done by ppl who are so poorly educated in history that they know nothing about the real world.

I have been following your blog, “Eternity Road”, for quite some time. I must say that that your writing and exposition have improved markedly. Good on. Can’t agree more with your post.

I report from the trenches. I have followed politics for more than 60 years. Some people are into stamps, some Soap Operas. Never got involved but found it fascinating.

Something very new and awe inspiring is happening. People I have known for many years, people who voted every two years as a civic duty unless it was raining, are of a sudden very concerned. We see this in the “Tea Parties” – I’ve attended four myself. We see this in the “Town Halls”. We see this in the incredible impact that Sarah Palin is having.

I liken what I am seeing to four great events in our history – The Revolution, the abolitionist movement, temperance and civil rights. Doesn’t happen often. Watch out when it does.

I also see distinct parallels with December 7, 1941 – Pearl Harbor. We are seeing an onslaught against out bed rock values. Not warplanes but rather Alinsky and Cloward-Priven. A quote which is attributed to Admiral Yamamoto (probably incorrectly) is “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant”. I think it is aptly applied to what is happening now. I kinda know what the mood was in 1941. My father and my uncles fought in that war. I see the same mood now. Grim determination.

I get a good laugh every time I hear the Democrats brag that they are the Party of Jefferson and Jackson.

Jefferson would no more associate with them than the King of England. They are exactly what he feared when a federal government was formed.

Jackson… The one President who completely paid off the national debt (for a little while). Put him in a room with a bunch of libs (as they discuss raising the debt ceiling by Trillions) and a hickory axe handle – rinse and repeat.

3. Now and Then: “Wow, thanks for clearing that up. I knew we were bad. I just didn’t know how bad.”

You don’t speak for all people on the left. There are 2 groups. The first group are well meaning people who are basically misguided dupes – most of them are young products of leftist MSM and academia. They will be much more conservative when they are confronted by the reality of life.

The second group are malevolent narcissists who believe they and those like them are superior and should be allowed to regulate the lives of others.

#58 ETAB,
Busted. I am on the second volume right now. I didn’t realise the profound affect it is having on me.
I studied quite a lot of philosophy in college(still less than 100 years ago) and I did not receive the ideals of Plato as well as my classmates and my professors did. Recently, I saw Popper’s book and finally decided I had to read it. I have been rewarded with the reasoning of a positively PROGRESSIVE thinker.

(1) See Joshua Muravchik’s book about the history of socialism, including the invention of the name.
(2) Reply to #47: Read Plato’s Republic carefully. The Ideal State is not totalitarian but ruled by the gods, who alone are wise. The closest we mortals can come to it is the rule of the lovers of wisdom, the philosophers. They know that they are ignorant, like Socrates.
(3) The term “left” comes from the seating arrangements of the National Assembly during the French Revolution. Delegates were seated in a semi-circle, the far Left being the Jacobins led by Maximillian Robespierre, and the far Right being the monarchists and clericals supporting a state church (Catholic). The revolutionaries in the 19th century thought of themselves as continuing the Jacobin tradition, i.e. Left; anyone not of their persuasion was “Right-Wing.” This continues today: those who regard themselves as on the Left proudly proclaim themselves as such, like Richard Rorty, but those not in this tradition do not call themselves “Right,” only their self-designated “Left-wing” opponents do. The “Left” follow in the tradition of Robespierre, regarding themselves as the all-knowing virtuous ones, avatars of reason. (See Robespierre’s speech of February 1794 defending the use of terror to make people virtuous. The term “terrorism” comes from his Reign of Terror.)

The Europeans have had a long time to sort out their socialism. Still their elites continue to consolidate their power with every election into an ever smaller group of intellectuals. Not long ago someone asked me why I didn’t think much of socialism as it seems to work well in Europe. I responded that sure it’s fine now but what he didn’t understand is that the Euro’s aren’t done yet, this is only the beginning. It won’t stay as it is. Socialism only has one ending.

To Hatless my hat is off in that I suspect that what we will see here in the U.S. will be quite different from the unarmed E.U. (did you know that the U.S. has 35% of all the small arms in the world and they are predominately in the hands of our citizen). We may end up with some convoluted form of socialism but nothing like we all see and admire in Europe, as it currently exists.

I suspect that it could and mostly likely will get ugly and doubt if there is anyway to stop it in the long haul, as the leftists power brokers continue to move us to the left with little steps, big steps, makes no never mind, but it is always to the left. ‘They’ just might get ‘Their’ revolution but it may not be all that pretty.

One last tidbit. People believe we can’t afford the Government takeover of Health Care. What no one has stopped to think about is that we have all the money in the world to support Government Health Care. It’s called the U.S. Armed Services. Disarm and you have your pot of gold, just like the Europeans to create any entitlement your little ‘ol heart desires.

Almost forgot. For those who believe that disarmament is a good idea. Fine with me. Go for it, but also study your history so that you know that someone will fill the void when we leave the stage.

So my follow-up question to the peaceniks is “Who do you want to take our place?”, not that you will have any choice in the matter, because you see, we will be disarmed. Let’s hope your little ‘Utopia’ works out just like the leaders manual says it should.

#17. eon:
Luckily for the world, Napoleon was (like it or not, military historians) a near-total incompetent on all counts, which probably saved humanity from a worse fate than what actually happened. (Imagine a world in which Bonaparte’ actually succeeded in conquering Europe and Russia, and holding on to his ill-gotten gains.)

I think I’m that military historian you were addressing this too. While Bonaparte isn’t specifically my area of expertise, I do know enough to recognize you’re wrong. It wasn’t that Napoleon was incompetent, because he wasn’t–he actually was something of a polymath, brilliant at a number of different things. The problem was that politically he was a statist, believing in government control (and pretty complete control at that) of pretty much everything. He rewrote France’s laws (or had them rewritten, anyway) completely, from the ground up, with results that were far-reaching and not always bad. Much of the world used the Code Napoleon, at least for awhile, as their legal system. While the legal system, and other things that he did, were influential, he couldn’t control everything completely using early 19th-century technology. Complete authority, when complete control wasn’t possible, meant the whole system broke down constantly.

Bottom line, Napoleon wasn’t incompetent. If today he were a world leader, he probably would try to be a dictator in Hitler’s or Stalin’s mold, though I think morally he wasn’t on the level of either of those men. But whatever he became, his government would be very controlling. It probably wouldn’t work now, and might become tyrannical, but it would work better than the actual one did, in 1812 or whenever.

Yes, he was. But it’s my understanding that the French Revolution was not just about atheists vs. believers. There was a split between clergy who accepted the Revolution and national authority and those who did not.

I have to go to work and so don’t have time to check the details, but wasn’t the uprising in the Vendee partly because the people there would not accept the pro-Revolutionary clergy Paris was sending them?

Thanks for the reference to Schama’s book, it sounds like one I’ll want to read.

I’ve been studying the French Revolution for a long time, as it was very obviously Case Zero for the modern “progressive” movement. And what it was really like, as opposed to the romanticized version, makes for intriguing reading.

The “storming of the Bastille”, for instance, smacked less of drama than of farce. The “stormers” camped outside the gates for four days, without being in any way opposed or even inconvenienced by the authorities, were finally let in by the old fortress’ commander, and freed… two pickpockets and three other petty thieves. Their primary target was actually the powder and cannon that they believed were stored there- that turned out to not be there in reality.

The Revolutionary Assembly took power in a series of parliamentary maneuvers, the King was reduced to a figurehead, and the coup was essentially over by mid-1789 without a shot fired. Then, in 1791, Robespierre & Co. decided to remake French society along their own self-conceived Utopian lines- and the guillotine began working almost nonstop, as the mob became as entranced by the prospect of seeing people die as they were themselves.

(The parallels between this and the “October Revolution” in Russia in 1917 are almost too obvious to cite, especially with the Bolsheviks’ overthrow of Kropotkin’s Mensheviks in mid-1918, which triggered the civil war, followed by their murder of the royal family, their purges, etc.)

As for the French on the battlefield, I’ve always considered the French to have good, tough soldiers who were unfortunately afflicted with bad officers. While they’ve had a few good commanders (DeGaulle, LeClerc, etc.), the general run of their battlefield commanders remind me irresistibly of Charles the Bold of Burgundy, who was noted for spending much time devising elaborate rules for the conduct of his army on the battlefield, and then losing every battle he engaged in.

The typical product of St. Cyr, etc., seems to have been inculcated with the theory that their primary duty is following doctrine and ensuring that all regulations are observed to the letter, as opposed to doing as much damage to the enemy as possible and not losing the war. As long as the rules are obeyed, if the army is shattered and the battle lost (as it was in 1871 and 1940, and very nearly so in 1915), well, there’s that saying “c’est le guerre’”.

And when they have a C-in-C who doesn’t do things that way, like DeGaulle or, now, Sarkozy, the usual calumny leveled against them by their own chain of command is that they are somehow “not truly French”.

(I wonder if Charles Martel had this sort of problem at Poitiers’?)

As for the “modern progressives”, I notice that they are rioting in Copenhagen today, on the grounds that whatever the climate conference accomplishes, It Won’t Be Good Enough. Apparently, only a total erasure of our civilization from the face of the earth will satisfy them.

And once more, we see that no matter how much they prate of “peace” and “love”, our modern-day “enlightened elite’”- the intellectual heirs of Robespierre, Marat, and Saint-Just- are just as entranced by the siren call of “cleansing violence” as their forerunners were.

Based on their track record, it could logically be argued that for the “progressives”, the violence is the raison d’etre of their very existence. They worship chaos, yearn for destruction, and dream of obliteration- ultimately, I suspect, their own as well as everyone else’s. (Ayn Rand probably got this exactly correct in Galt’s radio speech in “Atlas Shrugged”.)

All that ever changes is the most recent excuse, or series of excuses, for the havoc they wreak on the rest of us.

The one thing about progressives that boggles the mind is their gleeful collusion with Islamic radicals. When you disagree with a progressive, you are a right-wing, racist, misogynist, homophobic fascist. But these appelations accurately describe the views of Islamofascists…how far to the right can you get than murderous oppression using religious chauvanism as its basis? A priest in England will find himself brought up on charges for DARING to criticize homosexuality, yet an imam provoking his followers to murder homosexuals gets a pass. The progressives see no greater crime than oppressing blacks, gays and women, yet when blacks are murdered in Darfur, gays hanged in Iran, and women stoned in Saudi Arabia for having tea with a non-related male, that is completely acceptable to these leftists.

I think the answer is in the value of Islamic radicals to be the shock troops to cull the herd of non-believers who would stand in the way of the progressive elite. Why else would Gordon Brown import thousands of unassimilatable jihad-loving sharia-demanding anti-English muslim radicals to fundamentally transform his country?

The best system of the world and its constitution is now under attack by leftists. One needs to watch the history channel of Howard Zin’s presentation to realize how the left is going after the foundation of the first and real. Democracy in the world.

6. John “birther” Samford:
“When one (1) party controls the State, whoever controls that party also controls the State.”

So, we were under a tyrannical socialist state with Bush and the Republicans? Wow, who knew?

16. klrtz1:
“Liberal trolls” as I call them are never in doubt and always immoderate in their criticism. Bush was not just a bad president to them, he is the worst person ever, worse even than Hitler.”

Let me guess, you were home schooled. Hilter was never president. Though I will agree that the closest we ever got was W.

71. Trainwreck:
“When you disagree with a progressive, you are a right-wing, racist, misogynist, homophobic fascist.”

Well, what do you call people with disagree with right wing extremists?

Eon, again while I’m not contesting the details of the Bastille coup
your further understanding of how the next events turned upside down comes from your appreciation of the French in general.

Robespierre didn’t appear miraculously because we wanted to absolutely get rid of all our old social infrastructures ; if so, our code of laws would have been very different, funny that it took all the laws that already were the rules under the monarchies.

Now terror happened because of french patriotism, our population believed that the king was running away toward Austria and would rejoin our traditional enemi there, then rising an army for restauring all the nobles priviledges. One thing that we don’t perdon is trahison, and nobleness was considered as traitors of France. Remember how Marie Antoinette, the austrian “whore”, was carricatured, long before the Revolution. Therefore from then all the nobles, and the traditions tied to them, had to be eradicated.

If the king had staying quiet, he would still had kept his head and passed the rest of his life in jail, and or as an unuseful expat king.

Othewise your appreciation of St Cyr school is also a mere bias, it’s not knowing (ironically) that de Gaulle was teaching in this institution too.

Regarding how our army leaders managed their colonial wars and peace making there is still considered as a model in most of the military academies, even in the US. Also if you think to our old leaders that prepeared WWII, you can’t ask them to be expert in modern wars means such as tank, planes… etc, and how to manage operations with the ensemble. They were as old as Hindenburg in Germany, therefore they already had 2 wars with Germany in the teeth, 1870, 1914, it’s why they stood by the same defensive forecastings, Germany would still invade France through Alsace-Lorraine, that is why they built the Maginot line, effective though : Germans decided to attack through Belgiun by the north, and thus avoided the Maginot line.

I recall you that our army frames are still forged by st Cyr, those that made Dien dien Phu, Algeria, the peace-keepers in many African counties, Yougoslavia, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, our special forces, the GIGN (gendarmerie,) are also from there, also successful in all the anti-terrorists actions up to now.

Eon, again we weren’t alone in 1940 to loose the war, more than 350 000 Brits retreated at Dunkeerke, 100 000 french died for that, otherwise expect that only half of them could have manage to escape.

Now 1915, is as what the trenches war was, inside rules, but don’t forget Clemenceau and the Marechal Foch, curiously they managed to work out with the same soldiers !

Again Robespierre, Marat and tutti quanti of this smart esquadron,, were not the product of an elaborated policy, they surged as epiphenomens, because of the circonstances, some become murderers, like the guards in concentration camps, and back to civil life, they are gentlemen

No, Napoleon wasn’t that, only in Brits legends, code Napoleon took most of the laws that the revolutionnaires decreated, Again,he is reverred by the Jews, he permitted them to access to the national accademic schools, he enrolled them in the army and in the administration, and when he was conquerring abroad, he always brought with him scientists educated persons… not just taking the richnesses from there, but also bring them our laws and knowledge, of course the ideas of the “déclaration des droits de l’homme” too

I’m sorry to tell you, his military tactics on the ground (on see, not spectacular, it’s a pity that the former captains were dead, because of being old or because of revolution, mind you, they were also nobles) are hold as genious, in all the militaries academies

There was NEVER a change in the “progressive” agenda!!!! THe word is a coverup for communism/totalitarianism. They were OPPRESSIVE from the git-go. They are just a LOT more obvious about it now. Why does anyone continue to allow them to get away with the fraudulent moniker??? What is progressive about enslavement??? The next time anyone tells me that is the shorthand for their beliefs I will in no uncertain terms tell them what I monster I think they are. We should all do the same and maybe we can make it PC NOT to be a commie.

#62 PAthena says “The Ideal State is not totalitarian but ruled by the gods, who alone are wise. The closest we mortals can come to it is the rule of the lovers of wisdom, the philosophers. They know that they are ignorant, like Socrates.”

Plato also thought, and I agree, that government is a necessary and inadequate evil and that only philosophers could be trusted to keep the ideal society from continual deterioration. And what would the rule of philosophers(including the arrogant Plato) be? Would it be a forward looking citizen government? Would that be citizen government or citizens subservient to government?

An optimistic view. I like it. I happened to watch The Baader-Meinhof Komplex on Netflix last night, a 2008 German movie dramatizing its subject but in a basically documentary fashion. I highly recommend it – but beware, its depiction of Red Terror is really brutal. Good! Of course the film never mentions the USSR even once, I don’t think, but you can hardly expect anything different. “After the 20th Congress, we forget the USSR exists – never mind where all those Kalashnikovs and RPG-7s are coming from.” Nor do they mention the obvious implication of the recent discovery that the guy who committed Germany’s Kent State was a Stasi agent.

But anyway, I have a feeling that the absence of an overt, crystallized ideological doctrine like Marxism-Leninism, or one of its many quasi-coherent flavors, is actually a strength – presuming the original doctrine has taken hold vigorously and permanently enough that it can go on breathing out spores of itself despite the useful ignorance of its host-citizens.

I wonder if I’m being clear.

I guess what I mean is, really, most of my friends are Leninists without knowing it. They are certainly auto-sympathetic with such ideas, although they are unaware of their ultimate patrimony. They are extraordinarily hostile to “conservative” (i.e. common sense) ideas. They great them with Rachel Maddow-like disdain and sarcasm. If they catch themselves before they are rude enough to really express it, they are thenceforth condescending until one of the parties can extricate themselves from the subject or conversation.

I’m afraid that’s pretty hard soil. Seems like pretty thoroughly Leninist soil. This demonstrates their historical stupidity nicely, since if you even mention the word “communist” it’s received as though (1) anyone who uses the term “communist” is obviously a dangerous right-wing personality who wants to steal their abortion away, (2) Joseph McCarthy is in the middle of his harangues in the Senate and everyone’s going to be swept away in Sturmabteilung dragnet, (3) something like that. It is obvious that the present effect of recent intellectual history is to somehow blot out the memory of Marxism-Leninism while also making it impossible to even utter the word in a plain historiographical sense. Pretty fortuitous for Leninists!

But I don’t know, Mr. Ledeen. I think the headwinds are pretty powerfully, almost inexorably, Left. The Right just isn’t very cool. And when you don’t know shit about history or philosophy, all you got is cool.

We agree on the Code Napoleon’. One of its more attractive features (from my professional POV) is that it’s virtually impossible to get even a warrant unless you have a case solid enough on just evidence alone for a conviction. Louisiana still uses elements of it in their civil and criminal law, and there seem to be very few conflicts with the Bill of Rights, probably due to the high standard of proof.

Otherwise, unfortunately, I have to respectfully disagree. I have studied Napoleon quite thoroughly, and the inevitable conclusion that the evidence leads to is that he was almost unbelievably lucky in his initial campaigns, first to seize control of France, and then in Italy and the Austrian border regions. After that, his good fortune deserted him on the battlefield. His later campaigns in Egypt, Spain, and Russia were classic cases of overreach; he repeatedly made the same mistakes in doctrine and (especially) logistics. His ignominious personal escape from Egypt (in a small auxiliary at night) with the rest of his expeditionary army left to the mercies of the British was typical of his military record after 1805.

On the political side, his “statesmanship” can be more accurately described as nepotism. He made his brothers, cousins, etc., the new rulers of his conquered sections of Europe, and not a one of them had any more talent for the job than he did. On the purely domestic side, the Directory had certainly wrecked the French economy before he took power (by policies easily recognizable to us today that caused spiraling unemployment and hyperinflation), but his solution (trying to essentially make war for profit) just made things worse.

About the best thing that can be said of Bonaparte is that his success was largely borne on the fact that France had the largest army on the Continent. As the old saying goes, G-d tends to side with the big battalions. Or as Marshal Molotov put it 135 years later, quantity has a quality all its own.

Eon again, Napoleon was lucky as a soldier on battlefields, better his skills allowed him to be lucky.

Now when he started to loose, it’s because an alliance with UK, Austria and german lands permitted it. Also in the meanwhile the superiority of Napoleon at the beginning of his campains was because of innovations in the arms and tactics, that the “alliance” finally adopted too.

You can’t talk of the great army of Napoleon at the beginnings, soldiers were heteroclit vagabonds, and what was left of the monarchy soldiers, not many, because, most were issued from Nobleness, and if you remember the names of Napoleons generals, they ain’t noble. Also you may know that our kings used to hire foreign mercenaries, Germans and Croats that didn’t benefit to Napoleon (at the beginning for the croats), for the main raison that France was broke, and a fortiori the Revolutionnaires. Now, had America repaid back the dept in time, hmmm, may-be, we would still be under a monarchy regime

Eon, Oh I forgot, Napoleon expeditions were ment to make a tresory, (at least at the beginnings), you know our last king went bankrupted, for the pleasure to watch American “Alliees” turn their back as soon as Revolution occured

Dan: you are being clear. Your post is disturbing. Are you in college? I think back to the handful of hard leftists I knew during the ’80′s. Most of them were blowing a lot of hot air around but there were two I honestly think could have been Stasi had they been born in a different country. Hardened ideologues who definitely wouldn’t have minded breaking a few eggs to make an omelet.

(And, as Orwell used to point out when Stalinists used the “you have to break a few eggs” line on him, “So,where’s the omelet?”)

I doubt that N.Chamfort had in mind his “brothers in Revolution”, or to make a generalisation ; he rather was a witted intellectual that used to attend Litterature Salons, included by the Nobles’ and wasn’t mean to make a “bon mot” at the expenses of anyone that had the favors of the “actualities”

1. Yes, I know DeGaulle taught at St. Cyr. I also know he was transferred out, nearly demoted, and finally exiled to Morocco (along with LeClerc, another St. Cyr instructor), because his teachings on the role of armored forces in combat (as “breakthrough” elements to be supported by tactical airpower and mechanized infantry) conflicted with the conventional wisdom that armor was to be used solely as a support element for infantry in a line advance on foot at walking pace. That had been the policy in 1918, and the General Staff remained wedded to it. As a result, DeGaulle and LeClerc were doing garrison duty in North Africa when the Germans applied the very lessons they had tried to teach- in June 1940. (On the plus side, this did make DeGaulle and LeClerc available to command the Free French Forces, which paid off handsomely four years later when they entered Paris.)

2. Clemenceau and Foch did an excellent job with what they had to work with. But the policies which almost caused disaster for France were in place well before 1914. (The Guns 1914-1918 by Ian Hogg gives the unfortunate details). The near-paralysis you speak of on the Allies’ part was mainly due to the French General Staff insisting on being the “senior partner” in all planning, and the British going along because none of their senior officers wanted to give offense. This only changed after Clemenceau and Lloyd George took over, but elements of it remained as late at the U.S. entry into the war in 1917, as Pershing related in his reports to President Wilson.

3. I see we agree on Bonaparte’s aims in his later campaigns. However,we apparently differ on whether he was justified in doing so.

He also tended to let himself be distracted by matters irrelevant to the business of the mission. His mounting of a scientific mission in Egypt simultaneously with the military campaign being a case in point. Never mind Champollion’; he had his engineers making a map of the worst-smelling swamps in the country. While this certainly benefited medical science after germ theory was conceived (half a century later), he’d have probably done better to worry less about how the place smelled and more about what the British army was getting up to.

4. Napoleon had a very large army to work with, raised by the Directory. It had begun as an untrained mass that fought as a sort of giant square instead of in line formations, rolling over the enemy by sheer mass after a few picked marksmen, the francs-tireurs, had “sniped” their officers. Napoleon’s contribution, and it is not a small one, was to reinstill discipline and a chain of command. However, in doing so he tended to go back to Maurice of Nassau’s dictum; “nobody thinks, everyone executes.” This conflicted with his philosophy of a marshal’s baton in every foot-soldier’s backpack, and I still wonder why he did it.

5. I wasn’t aware that the new United States owed a great deal of specie to France. After all, other than muskets and the deployment of a French task force to bottle up Cornwallis, the French king (Louis XV) was doing most of it for the purpose of fighting the British in the undeclared “continuation of hostilities” that had existed between France and England for over a century. We Colonists were an opportunity for him to further “inconvenience” King George III at little cost in men or materiel’. We Yankees have a saying; never look a gift horse in the mouth.

We can agree to disagree. I am not primarily a military historian, nor do I have “prejudices” (or at least, no more than the average person). My background in law enforcement and forensic science means I have a tendency to “call them as I see them”, based on the available evidence. Irrespective of the “conventional wisdom”, whatever it may be.

Eon, I no offense, sorry if I’m a bit “rough” within my responses though, might be cuz I am in the “minority” that my “voice” must express louder

and the British going along because none of their senior officers wanted to give offense. This only changed after Clemenceau and Lloyd George took over, but elements of it remained as late at the U.S. entry into the war in 1917, as Pershing related in his reports to President Wilson.

Hmm, GB wasn’t under France military commandment in 1914, only when clemenceau took the relay and became the coodinator of the Allies efforts. In fact, if Germany had left Belgium alone, the Brits wouldn’t had bothered to enter into the conflict that undermined their traditional enemi, the French, like they stayed out beyond the 1870 conflict

the French king (Louis XV) was doing most of it for the purpose of fighting the British in the undeclared “continuation of hostilities” that had existed between France and England for over a century. We Colonists were an opportunity for him to further “inconvenience” King George III at little cost in men or materiel’. We Yankees have a saying; never look a gift horse in the mouth

uh then why was Benjamin Franklin assaulting every parisian salon ? he wanted to get some subsides to help american desire to get rid of the masters, the English !

Ol right our remnent antagonism was carried on american territory, but you the Yankees, exploited it for your own sake, and when you got the achievment, bye bye the frogs, we don’t need you anymore, uh the french settlers were even expelled !

cfbleachers – “These arrogant, smarmy, CHINO’s (countrymen here in name only) put on the faux mantle of the “elite”, but really are nothing more than rote memorizing, message “carriers”, predictable, cultish, and fanatic.”

That’s an awesome description.

And god forbid you attempt to kindly point it out to them! They present themselves as the ‘good ones.’ The ‘caring ones.’ Fighters for truth and justice! But if you dare point out the slightest errors in their logic they instantly turn to spittle flecked insults. “How—Dare—You!!!”

A normal person will back down from this surprising, snarling rage, leaving the content leftist to feel that they have “won the conversation.”

The left in this country was never “progressive”. It is now and always has been fascist which is why the democrat control of congress began at the same time that the KKK and eugenics groups had their largest memberships. The fact that the left will use whatever propaganda slogans it sees will fool the most people in order to gain control doesn’t mean they believe a bit of it. Just as they used the KKK to generate fear at one time while they instituted the Jim Crow laws and voting restriction laws throughout the country, they used the leftist slogans of revolution to appeal to the youth of the sixties. Ask the middle class black families who had their properties condemned in order to further the urban renewal that accompanied the “Great Society” how much revolutionary redistribution of wealth there really was to the black community. The biggest losers during that time were, in fact, middle class black folks who had were brushed aside in order to make a welfare state plantation system out of the black community. Dependence was and is the goal of the left in this country and there’s never been anything “progressive” about fostering a society of dependent serfs.

The left in this country has long sided with and dominated the democrat party, the party of slavery, secession, Jim Crow, eugenics, and totalitarian control. It’s no accident that the most prominent people in the AGW scam are all democrats since that’s their current propaganda tool being used to brainwash the youth just as they used “peoples’ revolution” to brainwash so many in the sixties and seventies. Not one of the promises they made to the “revolutionaries” of the sixties has been fulfilled. The only thing those who fell for that “progressive” line got was one heck of a lot less “do your own thing” and huge amounts of additional regulation and federal control. I feel sorry for all those who are feeble minded enough to fall for the leftist democrat lies these days. They’re living proof that the insanity of prosperity takes over a nation in only a few generations and always leads to the same thing, a loss of the freedom that made the prosperity possible.